King Kong

User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1288 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. TedH.
    Dec 19, 2005
    3
    That was it? That is the flick that so many critics went bananas for? This is honestly nothing more than a rehashed Jurassic Park presentation, overlong with all of the director's leering shots of... Well... Nothing much at all. Entire sub-plots are lost, the effects in many areas look unfinished, and the dialogue... Goodness, the dialogue. Stick with the original.
  2. RichardA
    Dec 19, 2005
    6
    Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape caged instead of being just chained? Why is the New York mayor so stupid to allow the show? How did Jack knew where Ann and Kong were sleeping? Why Too long. Intelligent use of visual effects. Mostly stupid characters and very shallow story. Questions: How was Kong transferred from Skull Island to New York? (This could have been an interesting part of the story.) Why wasn't The Ape caged instead of being just chained? Why is the New York mayor so stupid to allow the show? How did Jack knew where Ann and Kong were sleeping? Why is Ann so stupid (or was she just crazy in love)? Mwahaha... Expand
  3. BenG.
    Dec 19, 2005
    9
    Okay, if you think that this movie is unrealistic, why did you go see it? You already know what it is about! If you look past the fact that it is unrealistic and the fact that it is too long, you'll see that the acting is awesome and the effects rock! I loved this movie!
  4. NotfamousDave
    Dec 21, 2005
    1
    I made the mistake of taking a date on the first Friday this movie came out. Boy was that a bad idea. An hour into it, the poor woman (3rd date) was looking over at me like I was nuts. Fortunately, by the time we got to the ridiculous brontasaurus stampede and the humongous cockroaches the movie transcended bad and became all-out camp, a total joke. We couldn't stop muttering and I made the mistake of taking a date on the first Friday this movie came out. Boy was that a bad idea. An hour into it, the poor woman (3rd date) was looking over at me like I was nuts. Fortunately, by the time we got to the ridiculous brontasaurus stampede and the humongous cockroaches the movie transcended bad and became all-out camp, a total joke. We couldn't stop muttering and laughing for the remaining couple hours. We made the most of it, but this is one of the worst movies of all time, I think. Expand
  5. BennyB.
    Dec 21, 2005
    7
    A great movie that is perhaps a bit too drawn out. All the Skull Island sections are strong, the build-up sections in NY are good, but the NY sections with Kong at the end are a bit weak at times and felt drawn out. 3/4 of an hour could have been shaved off this.
  6. RaulJ.
    Dec 21, 2005
    8
    Old fashioned blockbuster entertainment. Yes, it may be a bit over-done in certain ways, but this does not hurt the movie. I do sypathize with those who say there are too many effects and too little heart. I would revise that to say over the top effects and marginal character development. Overall, very good entertainment.
  7. StevenS.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    Well, let's get this right out of the way first thing. Peter Jackson is one of the most untalented, overrated directors around. You'd think that after hits like The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and the upcoming Munich he'd have learned that to try and rip off other, more superior directors just doesn't work. That 200- million he was given to make this movie could have Well, let's get this right out of the way first thing. Peter Jackson is one of the most untalented, overrated directors around. You'd think that after hits like The Terminal, War of the Worlds, and the upcoming Munich he'd have learned that to try and rip off other, more superior directors just doesn't work. That 200- million he was given to make this movie could have really made an incredible work of art had it fallen into the hands of a more visionary, talented director... just saying. My advice: stay far away from the smell of rotten bananas and gorilla butt that's wafting out of the thater right now and rent some real works of art, like Jurassic Park, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or ET. Or wait and go see Munich when it comes to theaters... that's gonna be an awesome one! Expand
  8. WalkerR.
    Dec 22, 2005
    6
    Big effects, little substance. I forgot about the film as soon as I left the theater. The problem with these effects driven movies is they rely way to much on the CGI. Use it wisely my son. They lose their effect. I eventually became bored. Kong himself was good. But not enough to save the film. On top of that, its about 30 mins too long. Certaninly no LOTR. Peace out.
  9. KingBong
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    Peter Jackson is completely untalented, plain and simple. I swear almost ANYONE, you, me, any other director working today (even Uwe Boll!) could make the same, if not better, movie than this if given 2 batrillion kajillion bucks or whatever he was given. This is the same old big budget blockbuster tripe, where everything is generic and seems to have been done thousands of times before. Peter Jackson is completely untalented, plain and simple. I swear almost ANYONE, you, me, any other director working today (even Uwe Boll!) could make the same, if not better, movie than this if given 2 batrillion kajillion bucks or whatever he was given. This is the same old big budget blockbuster tripe, where everything is generic and seems to have been done thousands of times before. There's nothing distinctive in this movie except, of course, for the bad acting, pacing, action, and logic. It's too bad... had this not been done in the digital era (where bad special effects are only nauseating and jerky, and not silly and charming), not taken itself so damn seriously, and most of all wasn't a 3 mind crushing hours long, this could make a fine addition next to Plan Nine, Bride of the Monster and other classics of laughably, wonderfully bad cinema. Too bad it's not, and this is just merely godawful. Avoid, obviously. Expand
  10. GarethD.
    Dec 22, 2005
    8
    Didn't seem like 3 hours.....entertaining viewing.
  11. steve
    Dec 22, 2005
    3
    About 75 min too long. almost every scene was too long and generally repetitive. boring. great FX. completely realistic giant gorilla. yet still boring and filled with characters i didn't care about. i almost left early.
  12. CKong
    Dec 22, 2005
    8
    Very entertaining movie experience - some parts better then others - but well worth the money - Peter Jackson could make a movie about a lump of poo interesting.
  13. BillnTed
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    Wow. People are saying this remake is imaginative and original? The fact that it's a REMAKE aside, this movie is taken from scraps of every stupid film Jackson seems to have been able to think of, from Jurassic Park to his own Lord of the Rings trilogy. Jackson is the most overrated director around right now (since some people are finally on to Spielberg).
  14. WilliamT.
    Dec 23, 2005
    10
    The new David Lean has arrived. What a movie... greatest love story since Dr Zhivago.
  15. BenjitheGreat
    Dec 23, 2005
    2
    I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue sucks, and the scenes are pointless. Take for instance the beginning shots of depression-era New York City. I can't for the life of me think of I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue sucks, and the scenes are pointless. Take for instance the beginning shots of depression-era New York City. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason for this sequence of annoying shots to be here except for Peter Jackson to show off behind the camera and play around with his 200 million budget. Then when we finally do get to the island and things start to get interesting, it's already too late to regain faith in the film. The audience during this film was laughing and hooting after about an hour until the end of the film. Although this usually annoys me during a movie i cant say I really blame them in this case. It shames me to say that I have lost faith in Peter Jackson as an honest filmaker after this tragedy, as I am a fan of his previous work. Expand
  16. Wendy
    Dec 23, 2005
    0
    This movie was an abomintion. It was awful. Peter Jackson has lost touch with reality if he thinks this was good. Truly awful. Stay far away. The audience was laughing and walking out.
  17. ScottH.
    Dec 23, 2005
    8
    Great story and effects, just TOO long!
  18. JayF.
    Dec 24, 2005
    10
    Peter Jackson pulls off yet another epic although this isn't a fantasy world with wizards and hobbits but with prehistoric creatures and a mysterious island. Jackson really does deliver his promise that he had always wanted to remake the original film ever since he was a kid and he did a great job with it. Naomi Watts handles the character very well. Adrien Brody turns the rugged Peter Jackson pulls off yet another epic although this isn't a fantasy world with wizards and hobbits but with prehistoric creatures and a mysterious island. Jackson really does deliver his promise that he had always wanted to remake the original film ever since he was a kid and he did a great job with it. Naomi Watts handles the character very well. Adrien Brody turns the rugged sailor Jack Driscoll and makes him into an unlikely hero, a simple playwrite. Jack Black is not a funnyman in this picture but a filmmaker gone rouge instead of an adventurer like in the original. The natives of Skull Island are not the natives from jungle movies of the 30s but something out of a modern day zombie film! Of course, what would the film be without its title character Kong. Kong is very ferocious on one side but on another he is a very emotional beast. Peter Jackson and WETA have breathed life back into one of the most influential monster films of all. Had there not been any King Kong to begin with we wouldn't had monsters like Godzilla or Jaws. So thank you Peter Jackson for remaking a classic monster film and remaking it right and lets hope other filmmakers will remember this movie when they have to remake another classic movie monster. Expand
  19. ElleR.
    Dec 24, 2005
    10
    This is without a doubt the best film of the year. It is terrific, will have you on the edge of your seat, has a magnificent cast- naomi Watts, for example is in deserving of an oscar with her take on Ann darrow. It was just fabulous.
  20. RahulP.
    Dec 20, 2005
    7
    This is no Titanic or even compares to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson's last directorial effort. However, as a stand alone, ambitious project that it was, it nearly delivers. Some plot holes are exposed, but then again, with a Gorilla as the main character, that's a given. The sets, production design and the cinematography are amazing. Kong on top of the Empire This is no Titanic or even compares to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson's last directorial effort. However, as a stand alone, ambitious project that it was, it nearly delivers. Some plot holes are exposed, but then again, with a Gorilla as the main character, that's a given. The sets, production design and the cinematography are amazing. Kong on top of the Empire State Building is an amazing scene...King Kong itself is realized in amazing detail, however, the dinosaurs and the bugs and creatures of Skull Island I didn't see the reason for. The Captain of the ship, the stowaway kid and the first mate all had character development in the first hour, but you didn't really care and then I think PJ forgot about them as well :-) Naomi Watts was good, Jack Black was amazing as a mad director willing to stake everything on the line and Adrien Brody might as well have sleep-walked through the movie. Some silly sequences, notably the fight with the dinosaurs and the ice-skating scene! In the end, I compare this to Titanic and you realize that the reason Titanic was such a monster hit was because you cared for the characters and CGI/special effects were part of the movie, not the stars. King Kong was spectacular in the CGI/special effects, but lacked credibility in story realization and the character development. I didn't really care about King Kong in the end as he plunges to his death as I cared for what happened to Jack and Rose on the Titanic... Expand
  21. Zoe
    Dec 25, 2005
    7
    The first hour was great; perfect for getting us hooked into the time period, the characters and their motivations. Unlike "War of the Worlds," which gave us no connection to the characters, the fact that Jackson gives us this time is laudable, although I could have done without the "Heart of Darkness" duo. Doesn't Jackson know that in an action flick like this you only have time to The first hour was great; perfect for getting us hooked into the time period, the characters and their motivations. Unlike "War of the Worlds," which gave us no connection to the characters, the fact that Jackson gives us this time is laudable, although I could have done without the "Heart of Darkness" duo. Doesn't Jackson know that in an action flick like this you only have time to care about a couple of characters? Trying to force in more "heart" always feels...er...forced. Ironically, as the action speeds up in the second third, my interest fell. Some fabulous action scenes are overshadowed by some gratuitous action scenes. I wish there had been more time spent here developing the chemistry between Anne and Kong rather than throwing in every cool effect they could think of. The final third was brilliant. Loved it. In the end, this movie is flawed simply because as an audience we're not naive enough to appreciate the whole vision. But, don't wait for home video. This one is definitely worth seeing on the big screen. Expand
  22. LadyLiberty
    Dec 25, 2005
    0
    Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't bad enough he totally miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. The last hour you just can't wait for the Big Ape to jump off of the Empire State Building. There's no dialogue of any consequence and Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is unbelievable climbing up the steps to the top of the building in the dead of winter in a shear dress and high heel shoes. And yes, if you still buy this garbage, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you. Expand
  23. JamesM.
    Dec 20, 2005
    10
    To say that this film is a masterpiece is an understatement. King Kong has a sense of majesty and wonder that you will not experience for a very long time, so make sure you see it. Also, all of those people who are saying it is too long obviously have attention spans that are far too short. These are probably the same people that said Pulp Fiction had too much talking or The Godfather To say that this film is a masterpiece is an understatement. King Kong has a sense of majesty and wonder that you will not experience for a very long time, so make sure you see it. Also, all of those people who are saying it is too long obviously have attention spans that are far too short. These are probably the same people that said Pulp Fiction had too much talking or The Godfather didn't have enough action. Expand
  24. BobbieSocks
    Dec 25, 2005
    0
    This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to remember. Jackson stay home in New Zealand because if this is all you can turn out with a budget of two-hundred million you are in deep trouble. Avoid this turkey at all costs. Expand
  25. NickK.
    Dec 26, 2005
    9
    A solidly entertaining movie. Although a little long for my taste, every epic movie has to break the two hour time limit. For those of you who think it's crap, you need to learn to sit back and take it for what it is: entertainment.
  26. ScottE.
    Dec 26, 2005
    3
    I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any better anytime soon. I have to admit that the dinosaur battles were viscerally exciting, but every other scene on the island seemed insulting. The part with the bugs was especially repulsive and head-scratchingly unnecessary. Why were we forced to see such an unoriginal movie? Only after the implausible transfer of Kong to New York does this movie actually pick up pace and start to redeem itself. At that point, it's too little, too late. Everyone in the theater was captivated by the Empire State Building sequence but not much else. Bottom Line: The movie dragged when Kong/Watts were not in the scene. No amount of CGI can save this self-indulgent film, no matter how much the critics praise this superficially bloated bust of a remake. Expand
  27. VerminD.
    Dec 27, 2005
    6
    Not a bad film, but not a particularly good one either. Forgettable. In the same league as War of the Worlds, Batman, Narnia, Star Wars and all the other CGI work-outs that have come along this year. If I had to sum it up in one word I'd say 'confused'. Lots of bits seemed odd, especially Naomi Watts' interactions with Kong
  28. JonathanL.
    Dec 27, 2005
    10
    I agree that there can be some editing, but for everyone who overly critizes Kong's length what particular scenes should be left out? Although flawed watching King Kong can be the greatest movie experience of all time. Even if the movie didn't have any storyline the visual and detailed 1930s New York street scenes are worth the admission ticket. Anyone who is bored by King Kong, I agree that there can be some editing, but for everyone who overly critizes Kong's length what particular scenes should be left out? Although flawed watching King Kong can be the greatest movie experience of all time. Even if the movie didn't have any storyline the visual and detailed 1930s New York street scenes are worth the admission ticket. Anyone who is bored by King Kong, and can't find anything to draw their attention too, probably shouldn't be wasting their time watching any movie. King Kong is the reason movies are made and Peter Jackson is the King of big budget movies Expand
  29. RossN.
    Dec 27, 2005
    9
    Interesting to see such a broad range of opinions and ratings. Some of those who've dismissed it I believe are missing the point and probably need to relax a little more. I was enthralled and thought it was wonderful escapism - I thought Kong delivered far more depth of character than I would have expected and I didn't have a problem with the characterisations generally. My Interesting to see such a broad range of opinions and ratings. Some of those who've dismissed it I believe are missing the point and probably need to relax a little more. I was enthralled and thought it was wonderful escapism - I thought Kong delivered far more depth of character than I would have expected and I didn't have a problem with the characterisations generally. My expectation was that this would be big, over the top and a thrill and I was satisfied on all counts. Great stuff. Expand
  30. DonN.
    Dec 27, 2005
    2
    This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 tons, stepping & sliding across the ice on a pond in Central Park without breaking the ice. Save your money! Expand
  31. OLGUNS.
    Dec 28, 2005
    10
    Wonder.
  32. DannyD.
    Dec 28, 2005
    3
    Simply too much of a good thing. The original was able to tell the same story in under 2 hours. Peter Jackson should have slimmed down the movie instead of himself.
  33. Warmonger
    Dec 20, 2005
    10
    A very impressive and totally enjoyable experience!!... if you are in any way a fan of the classic King Kong, then you will appreciate this version as well. It elaborates on so many aspects of the originall...Don't listen to the nay sayers who probably liked the original about as much as they liked this version!!! it's a great flim, destined to become another King Kong classic!
  34. TomB.
    Dec 20, 2005
    9
    This could have easily been a big disappointment for me as I am such a big fan of the original 1933 film. Face it; When you go remaking such a classic you are playing with fire. Peter Jackson has cited the original Kong as a major inspiration to him one which lead him into film making and has stated that he wanted to bring the beloved story to the younger generation which is reluctant to This could have easily been a big disappointment for me as I am such a big fan of the original 1933 film. Face it; When you go remaking such a classic you are playing with fire. Peter Jackson has cited the original Kong as a major inspiration to him one which lead him into film making and has stated that he wanted to bring the beloved story to the younger generation which is reluctant to watch old movies. He has said that he wanted to use modern effects and technology to tell the story and bring some freshness to it while retaining spirit of the original. I think he succeeded. I want to say right up front that the ads and trailers for the movie really don't do the CGI effects justice. I really expected the giant gorilla to look a bit like a character from a video game ala Jar Jar Binks or The Hulk but the effects are very believable and really do set a new standard in terms of intermixing computer generated characters with live ones. The few changes Jackson made don't take away from the original characters or the plot at all, in fact, they enhance them; The heroine, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), and the fast talking Carl Denham (Jack Black) are given back stories which explain some of their motivations and I felt they were nice touches. I only have a few very small criticisms of the film and they primarily revolve around scenes that are either too long or unnecessary. Jackson could have easily trimmed 20 minutes or so out of the 3+ hours and I think the movie would have been better for it. Still, this is as good of a remake as I've ever seen. As with Sam Raimi and the Spiderman films, Peter Jackson has demonstrated what a difference it makes when director has a true love of the source material he is working from. Expand
  35. david
    Dec 28, 2005
    1
    Everything i wanted to say was said by Steven N. Great review! Every one of those points were right on. There are movies you just have fun with and say "its just a movie". but the action scenes on this one was sooooo bad that i could not stand it.
  36. StacyR.
    Dec 20, 2005
    0
    A total bore. Worst of all, the bore goes on for three hours. Nothing in this movie is unique or hasn't been seen before countless times in other faux-adventure tales. Rent Jurassic Park or the original King Kong for something that won't put you to sleep.
  37. DanL.
    Dec 31, 2005
    6
    When they weren't on Skull Island, it was boring and some of the NYC street scenes looked real fakey.
  38. WarrenL.
    Dec 30, 2005
    0
    Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Secondly, Jack Black with his one dimensional stare was simply awful. After the first boring act is over with get to Skull Island aka Jurassic Park. Did I actually see natives in black paint? And the stampeding dinosaurs shown the same loop three different times. C'mon. Then for your entertainment pleasure watch as Kong fights not one, not two but three T-Rex's all at the same time. And if that wasn't enought the vampire bats attacking Kong in his lair but not our hero's was over the top. But then not to be outdone wasn't it a nice touch with the Captain swinging on a vine while shooting the spiders off of our hero's without one bullet even grazing them? And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help. Expand
  39. GabrielD.
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    This movie was great!! I dont see how anyone could give it a zero!!
  40. MallardD.
    Dec 30, 2005
    0
    This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even happen: seeing Kong land on Joe Black as he hits the street after falling from the ESB. All in all a King Kong pile of crap. Expand
  41. Filmbufs
    Jan 11, 2006
    7
    Sometimes, even in epic adventures, it is the subtle moments that stand out. Although the efx are outstanding (for the most part) it is the relationship between Kong and Anne Darrow that remain memorable. When dialogue occurs, however, we see Kevin Jackson's unmistakable weakness. He can direct special efx sequences but appears to have difficulty with actors. Thankfully, there are Sometimes, even in epic adventures, it is the subtle moments that stand out. Although the efx are outstanding (for the most part) it is the relationship between Kong and Anne Darrow that remain memorable. When dialogue occurs, however, we see Kevin Jackson's unmistakable weakness. He can direct special efx sequences but appears to have difficulty with actors. Thankfully, there are many, many moments that rely on unspoken emotions and all of them between Kong and Darrow. The movie is bearable during the first hour as they attempt to give motivation for going on a boat trip to an uncharted isle. This three hour tour does get rough as plot points and characters are essentially sketched in but we all know what's in store. Thankfully, there is a noticeable shift as the second hour begins. The creepy fog settling on the boat cleanes our palate as we approach Skull Island. We're not in Kansas anymore, nor are we in the technicolor, dilluted, depression-era NY where overacting reins king. The adventure finally begins and never eases up. King Kong is not without flaws, even in the special efx department, but overall everything is forgiven as we gladly latch on to a ride for the remaining two-thirds of the movie. Some plot points are laughable, more than a few characters are on-screen without proper motivation (a huge, consistent problem with Jackson's movies) and some of the efx look unbelievable or unfinished. But it's the quiet moments as we see the expressions revealed in Kong's eyes that drive the story and make us believe. Andy Serkis once again provides more emotion and depth in digital form than several of the live actors. It's a sad statement really, but quite the accomplishment for Mr. Serkis. King Kong lives up to the hype and you should definitely see this on the big screen. At least the last two-thirds. Expand
  42. RalphieBoy
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    King Krap is more like it!
  43. Horace
    Jan 10, 2006
    0
    Awful and laughable. A waste of my time.
  44. JillH.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Recently, Ebert gave 0 stars to Wolf Creek because he found it dehumanizing that people would wish to see people cruelly killed. Yet in King Kong, a movie he and so many others hailed as a masterpiece, we are supposed to cheer for the killer, a monstrous ape that kills A LOT of innocent people in this 3 hour long snooze fest. Humanizing, indeed.
  45. Ted
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    What an absolute disaster...
  46. Numby
    Jan 11, 2006
    0
    So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and bells and whistles. It has no intelligent dialogue, impossible to believe action scenes that are comical and only appeal to juveniles with an IQ of So Sly it was made with intelligence? It's quite obvious that you and the others that loved this crapola have no command of the Queen's English. This is nothing more than an elaborate video pinball machine with flashing lights and bells and whistles. It has no intelligent dialogue, impossible to believe action scenes that are comical and only appeal to juveniles with an IQ of less than 85. Most of this trailer trash belonged on the cutting room floor as it is way too long, but to people like Sly this was one hell of a movie. All I can say is Sly I am glad that you enjoyed it. Have you tried a kalaidescope because the pretty colors can do the same for you for less than the cost of a ticket? Kong is ridiculous with horrible directing and wooden stiff acting. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. Expand
  47. SammyZee
    Jan 1, 2006
    9
    Pretty damn good. no wonder it was one of the most expensive moves ever made. one word: Wow.
  48. KondaR.
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    This movie needs 10...It has action, mystery with adventure,emotinal turnout Though a sad ending my score is 10 For this epic.
  49. MichaelO.
    Jan 10, 2006
    7
    Really, most of this movie was quite good. The story isn't much, but it's an action flick. The special effects were pretty good, although some of them seemed silly. The huge downside to this movie is that it's about 60 minutes too long. Some scenes just drag on and on.
  50. FredG.
    Jan 1, 2006
    8
    A little too long, and parts of it were unnecessarily drawn out (esp. near the end) - but as a remake scenes in this were just incredible to watch. It would have been perfect if he had saved some of the extended scenes for the DVD and cut the movie shorter.
  51. JimG.
    Jan 1, 2006
    5
    It
  52. JembleC.
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    Horrendous.
  53. SybelzJ
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    What he said. Scandalously bad. All these 10/10's are further evidence that metacritic is full of corrupt publicists and PR companies doing what they do best, which is deceive the public. For shame.
  54. DimitrisB.
    Jan 11, 2006
    8
    It a good remake.
  55. Haden
    Jan 1, 2006
    0
    This is an amateur production not worthy of your time nor money. This should have come out on April 1st. It's a joke.
  56. Alfa2005
    Jan 12, 2006
    10
    O.k. stop of discussing!, what are u looking for into a movie theater?, quality of story and a visual travel?, this movie works!, good.
  57. DennisB.
    Jan 1, 2006
    10
    what makes this movie great is also what most detractors are complaining about; it is a non-stop onslaught of adrenaline. there are, in fact, reports of people coming out of the theatres feeling physically exhausted, not bored or tired, EXHAUSTED. nobody who gives this movie a "5" or lower rating can even be taken seriously here, as anybody who knows anything about filmmaking can tell you what makes this movie great is also what most detractors are complaining about; it is a non-stop onslaught of adrenaline. there are, in fact, reports of people coming out of the theatres feeling physically exhausted, not bored or tired, EXHAUSTED. nobody who gives this movie a "5" or lower rating can even be taken seriously here, as anybody who knows anything about filmmaking can tell you that the special effects alone are revolutionary and deserving of respect. naomi watts is beautiful and engaging, showing incredible skill considering much of her scenes were shot against blue screen. jack black shows charming restraint in his subtle villainy, and adrien brody is an understated leading man who comes across as a real human, not cut from the typical action hero mold. simply stated: this is a great film that will be remembered as a classic in the vain of "raiders of the lost arc," "titanic," and the original "star wars" trilogy. the question potential viewers need to ask themselves is, "can i handle a marathon that feels more like a sprint?" Expand
  58. JoelT.
    Jan 12, 2006
    5
    I thought the first hour or so was great. Then comes a barrage of ridiculous action scenes, most of which should have been edited out for their sheer stupidity.
  59. Durago
    Jan 12, 2006
    1
    Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in the editing process as the movie was too long. The CGI was good but when combined with the poor dialogue did not create any suspense but rather we Tried very hard to like it. Sorry, just terrible as Jackson detracted from the original story with implausible writing. His choice of actors with the exception of Naomi Watts was awful. Much of the special effects should have been deleted in the editing process as the movie was too long. The CGI was good but when combined with the poor dialogue did not create any suspense but rather we kept waiting for the Big Climatic Dive that we knew was coming. With all the money he spent Jackson should have realized that his version was over the top and obtained some help. Instead, this is an amateur production. In less than a month this hyped up blockbuster event has fizzled to a crawl. Word of mouth will doom recouping the 200M invested. At best the studio will only break even as GROSS sales of 150M to date is extremely disappointing. Just a terrible effort by an otherwise talented Mr. Jackson. Let's hope he learned from his mistake? Expand
  60. GaborA.
    Jan 13, 2006
    3
    While other good fantasy epics build up to one climactic moment King Kong nails you with a twenty million dollar sequence in the fist third. But the movie has so much left to go so it tries to out do itself over and over. Soon we're not watchin fantasy, but over the top hollywood preposterousness. So when the amusement ride tries to slow donw to get some emotional scenes out of the While other good fantasy epics build up to one climactic moment King Kong nails you with a twenty million dollar sequence in the fist third. But the movie has so much left to go so it tries to out do itself over and over. Soon we're not watchin fantasy, but over the top hollywood preposterousness. So when the amusement ride tries to slow donw to get some emotional scenes out of the way instead of feeling genuine they also feel ridiculous. What I'm trying to say is that it doesnt work. At all. Expand
  61. LeeG.
    Jan 13, 2006
    1
    Way too long, cheesy, bad dialogue, and the special effects for the most part weren't great. the scene with kong fighting the dinosuars in the trees was the only good part. other than that there's no need to watch this. the ice dancing scene at the end was embarrassing.
  62. Movieeater
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    Hey, I dont believe to some people, why give less than 5 to this enormous and excelent movie, feel envy?, whatever, the best for me since trilogy Lord of the rings.
  63. RharoKongo
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    Big, great, excellent, wonderful, one of the wonders of 2005, but not the eight, maybe the second or one, yes for me is the ONE.
  64. GalanChis
    Jan 13, 2006
    10
    Many comments here !, dont say more, just that this kong is the best Kong of all, and the movie is perfect cause it searched the excelence. That is more than notorius.
  65. ChristineP.
    Jan 14, 2006
    3
    King Kong, more like King Long! To drawn out and takes too long to get to the point. A lot of stuff should have been edited out. I was happy when it was over so I could leave!
  66. DanielV.
    Jan 15, 2006
    10
    Better than Star wars when the story looses and you can only remember the visual effects after see it, but this is not the case, is a Big monkey, a big budget yes, and a Big Picture.
  67. PatrickB.
    Jan 15, 2006
    7
    Outstanding movie IF they would have stopped at Skull Island. If they would have just gotten away and killed Kong in the process it would have been a perfect ending. Unfortunately, in staying true to the original, he New York ending seems tacked on and contrived.
  68. GeorgeG.
    Jan 16, 2006
    10
    I think that king kong is a super film becuase of it's amount of thriling prats that is has in it.
  69. LeoF.
    Jan 17, 2006
    6
    3 hours long. For Pete's sake, (pun intended) why did it have to be 3 hours long? If it were 2 hours it would have been fantastic. Sorry, Peter. I absolutely loved, LOVED RotK and even that film was too long. Now this bloted ego trip. Will someone down his studio line reign him in? Economy in stoytelling is just as important as the other aspects in filmmaking. If Peter has the 3 hours long. For Pete's sake, (pun intended) why did it have to be 3 hours long? If it were 2 hours it would have been fantastic. Sorry, Peter. I absolutely loved, LOVED RotK and even that film was too long. Now this bloted ego trip. Will someone down his studio line reign him in? Economy in stoytelling is just as important as the other aspects in filmmaking. If Peter has the cojones to release a special edition 2-hour version DVD I guarantee it will sell. Expand
  70. J.S.
    Jan 17, 2006
    4
    My problem with silly action movies is I can't shut my brain off. If you are a person that can flip a switch and then accept anything shown to you then you may love the movie. I have no problems with fantasy, I enjoyed LOTR but because it was written by a good author who cared about things making sense. People who like Kong will just call me a nitpicking, but here are a few things My problem with silly action movies is I can't shut my brain off. If you are a person that can flip a switch and then accept anything shown to you then you may love the movie. I have no problems with fantasy, I enjoyed LOTR but because it was written by a good author who cared about things making sense. People who like Kong will just call me a nitpicking, but here are a few things that required you to ignore reason - A hundred pound woman would not pull a steel ladder off a building if one of its harnasses broke, an enormous ape who can climb huge buildings would not be stopped by a stone wall that's only about twice his size, native people do not disappear after you deal with them, women do not give up their whole lives to live on an island with pets, a trained ship crew probably doesn't freak out as soon as they see fog, if machine guns and rifles do absolutely nothing to an animal then plane guns shouldn't do a huge amount more, a t rex's jaws should break skin of most any living creature, a director would probably allow the writer to write somewhere other than in a cage, brontosaurus's never existed, what do tons of huge bugs regularly eat to support themselves when people aren't there and so on. Besides these issues, the movie also strikes of human vanity. We are so beautiful even other species should want to sleep with us? And if you kong as a metaphor for the beast in us all or whatever else you'd like, then most of the movie is entirely superflouos. Actuall, however the movie is taken it is about an hour and a half too long. Scene after scene goes on for too long, often to the point where apathy set in. The bugs were scary at first, then 5 minutes later when they were still wriggling and tossing the bugs stopped being scary. The end was sad, then 8 minutes later of the same thing I was just checking my watch. Expand
  71. TheWhiskeyMan
    Jan 18, 2006
    2
    Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to King Kong's lair there is some very improbable events. After a while it becomes totally predictable like in the original Star Trek Days where you Great Special effects but thats about it. The movie takes a long time to start rolling with some needless footage about the Great Depression that lends nothing to the King Kong story except take up time and space. When they finally get to King Kong's lair there is some very improbable events. After a while it becomes totally predictable like in the original Star Trek Days where you can tell by the uniform who is going to buy the farm? By the time the movie finally gets us back to NYC the film has lost all its steam. I was looking at my watch hoping, praying for it to end as there was no suspense and it just fell apart. The rave reviews are certainly not deserving unless you are an adolescent unfamiliar with the story. If you want to see a great movie see the 1933 original. It is two hours shorter and ten times better. Peter Jackson did not use his 200M wisely on that you can be certain. Expand
  72. Dracula
    Jan 18, 2006
    0
    Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the crap Peter Jackson fed us with this tedious bore of a turkey. Dracula and the Wolfman v. King Kong. Frankenstein can take on the Why couldn't they have had Bella Lugosi swoop in on top of the Empire State Buiding bite Naomi Watts in the neck, swat Adrian Brody off the buiding and then grab Kong and fly him back to Skull Island? Sounds ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than the crap Peter Jackson fed us with this tedious bore of a turkey. Dracula and the Wolfman v. King Kong. Frankenstein can take on the winner. Yuk! Expand
  73. EmilC.
    Jan 19, 2006
    1
    First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The fights are stupid , acting is criminaly bad and I think that Peter Jackson had a fame struck to his had so he directed this bad film.Last sad the old First thing is that movie is tooo long.There is 1h10min till you even see King Kong and till then it is dull movie.After King Kong jumps in things doesnt get better.Then it mixes Jurrasic Park with Lord of the Rings monsters and spiders.The fights are stupid , acting is criminaly bad and I think that Peter Jackson had a fame struck to his had so he directed this bad film.Last sad the old and original King Kong was at least 10000 better and some legendary movies like that one should never be remaked. Expand
  74. BelindaT.
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    Para mi el cine es diversion, y si está repleto de arte como esta pelicula, pues es genial, como para verla una y otra vez!, no es perfecta como no lo es ninguna cinta pero le doy mi máximo...10
  75. BiBIL.
    Jan 21, 2006
    10
    Gladiator, Titanic, Lord of the rings, Cinderella man, The sixth sense and King kong are GREAT!.
  76. TerriS.
    Jan 2, 2006
    4
    A movie of excesses; twice as long as it needed to be.
  77. RyanD.
    Jan 21, 2006
    9
    Any one who is not entertained by this movie, I hear Cheaper by the Dozen has a squel out, you might want to check that out. Peter Jackson's vision truly comes alive in this movie, that is more that just explosions and special effects. It is an entertaining story that makes the three hours worth it. I'll agree that it was a touch long, but almost necessary when you have to Any one who is not entertained by this movie, I hear Cheaper by the Dozen has a squel out, you might want to check that out. Peter Jackson's vision truly comes alive in this movie, that is more that just explosions and special effects. It is an entertaining story that makes the three hours worth it. I'll agree that it was a touch long, but almost necessary when you have to develope a main character that is a CGI ape who can't talk. Grab a bucket of popcorn and enjoy. Expand
  78. RyanM.
    Jan 21, 2006
    5
    ***SPOILERS... although really, if your not familiar with the story, that's a little odd*** Well, it was pretty, and I can't really fault the acting, but I found the plot a little hard to swallow. Maybe I just don't like the King Kong story; I don't know, I've never seen the original. The movie relies on you feeling sorry for Kong, but that's a little hard to ***SPOILERS... although really, if your not familiar with the story, that's a little odd*** Well, it was pretty, and I can't really fault the acting, but I found the plot a little hard to swallow. Maybe I just don't like the King Kong story; I don't know, I've never seen the original. The movie relies on you feeling sorry for Kong, but that's a little hard to do while he's rampaging through New York city killing innocent civilians. All that went through my head was "Let me get this straight... we're supposed to like this creature just because there's one girl that he didn't kill?" They draw out his death to the point of ridiculousness, too. Maybe if they'd succeeded in making me feel bad about it I wouldn't have minded, but it ended up more of a "Alright, I get it. It's very sad that the giant homocidal gorilla is going to die. Just freaking kill him already" kind of thing. Not to mention that he died in a rather... familiar way. Sitting in the theatre, watching KK lose his grip, slide backward and fall to his death I was reminded that I was watching a Peter Jackson movie and had to restrain my urge to yell "GAAAAAAANDAAAAAAAAALF!!!" in my best Frodo Baggins voice. I don't know if that's how he fell off the building in the original or not, but I still found that pretty funny. That's not the only recycled LOTR element you'll find either. You'll also find the hiding-behind-the-pillar-"Oh good, it's gone."-"Oh shit no, it's on the other side" thing again too. Also, although the scene with the characters running through the dinosaurs' legs isn't really recycled, there are a few ROTK-esque moments. Sorry, but I can't help but think that this shows a lack of originality. The bottom line is that it's not that bad, but I still kind of feel like I've wasted three hours. Along that same wavelength, this movie was far too long. It could very easily have been a two hour movie. Expand
  79. CharlesL.
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    This movie was simply amazing. All the people who give it 1s or 0s have no opinion at all, and are here by banned from voting again. You can't simply give a movie a 0 or 1 because it was too long, or YOU didn't like it. Its about what other people like, and that is great story telling, terrific acting, a great plot, and amazing special effects. Sure, some scenes felt a little This movie was simply amazing. All the people who give it 1s or 0s have no opinion at all, and are here by banned from voting again. You can't simply give a movie a 0 or 1 because it was too long, or YOU didn't like it. Its about what other people like, and that is great story telling, terrific acting, a great plot, and amazing special effects. Sure, some scenes felt a little cheesy, but those were followed up by scenes of magnificent perfection, scenes that star wars or lord of the rings could never show, scenes of love, with out words. Ann didn't say she loved kong, but you could feel it, and a movie that lets you feel emotion is perfection. Expand
  80. KevinM.
    Dec 6, 2006
    9
    This was by far the best version of Kong that I have seen. Jack Black was great and after watching the film couldn't pick a better person for that role. Great flick and a great job by the crew.
  81. GerronK
    Jan 26, 2006
    10
    Excellent!
  82. Sidiot
    Jan 3, 2006
    0
    A movie only an idiot can love? What was to like? The unoriginal story; the terrible acting, a lame script with more holes than swiss cheese; or the editing that never took place? Peter Jackson is in love with himself as that's obvious. Boring and ludicrous.
  83. JimJ.
    Jan 3, 2006
    6
    There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an awful lot in Kong. The movie is too long, and despite what some people say on here it is perfectly fine to dislike a movie when it is longer than it There are some thrilling scenes, but no real sense of cohesiveness that would give the scenes more impact. A lot of the dialogue is pretty bad and Jackson uses that horrible slow motion effect from the begining of Fellowship of the Ring an awful lot in Kong. The movie is too long, and despite what some people say on here it is perfectly fine to dislike a movie when it is longer than it needs to be. That being said, 1930's New York looked great, the dinosaurs were amazing, and most of the actors gave captivating performances, particularly Naomi Watts. Expand
  84. MarkB.
    Jan 3, 2006
    10
    If I really wanted to dig deep to find a complaint, I suppose I could point out that Peter Jackson's depiction of Skull Island as the ultimate untamed frontier--replete with dinosaurs that cause more damage bumping into each other than attacking you, bugs the size of kitchen toasters, and not a single smooth-surfaced rock in sight--inadvertently reinforces the Cheneyesque view that If I really wanted to dig deep to find a complaint, I suppose I could point out that Peter Jackson's depiction of Skull Island as the ultimate untamed frontier--replete with dinosaurs that cause more damage bumping into each other than attacking you, bugs the size of kitchen toasters, and not a single smooth-surfaced rock in sight--inadvertently reinforces the Cheneyesque view that ALL of nature needs to be controlled, dominated and bulldozed. But that argument is strictly academic (not to say facetious); Jackson, whose Lord of the Rings films I've admired at arm's length without actually loving, has made a grand entertainment that's deeply respectful to Merian Cooper's and Ernest Schoedsack's 1933 classic when necessary, improves on it when even more necessary, and is among the speediest three hours I've ever spent in or outside a theater. First up for praise is the picture's truly spectacular production design, which elevates computer work to an uncharted level; not only is the aforementioned Skull Island the ultimate outdoor charnel house waiting to happen, but even more astonishing is Jackson's depiction of both economic ends of Depression-era New York. (I've seen hundreds of early 1930s films and other depictions of the time, and was floored by how accurately Jackson got every detail--right down to the style of poster lettering at the burlesque house where Ann Darrow considers working.) The technical excellence wouldn't register nearly as sharply without the human element, and the central performances wonderfully flesh out what were strictly one-dimensional characterizations in the original: Andy Serkis makes the big ape more recognizably human than most human actors playing human beings made them this year; Adrien Brody satisfyingly portrays the best kind of movie hero--an unexpected one; and Jack Black so amusingly and pungently conveys the carny-act sleaziness of filmmaker Carl Denham that it may disappoint some viewers that his character doesn't get more of a comeuppance than he does. The real breakthrough, however, is Naomi Watts: she's previously been impressive in everything she's done (Mulholland Drive, 21 Grams, I Heart Huckabees) but responding largely to greenscreen and Serkis, truly becomes a great actress here, transforming a role that was previously trademarked by Fay Wray's wall-to-wall screaming into a stunning portrait of childlike wonder and adult compassion; only Amy Adams in Junebug is Watts' recent equal in depicting a genuinely good person without making her unbelievable or saccharine. (Time magazine film critic Richard Schickel's cranky assertion that Watts' Ann Darrow has the hots for Kong has got to be the most ridiculous statement that Schickel has made in a mostly honorable 50-year career, but then the gleeful schaudenfraude exhibited by some of the press over the fact that Kong will end up doing healthy Batman Begins business, rather than unprecedented Titanic box office is equally childish and disgraceful.) Watts' characterization of Ann, and its conception on the script level, mark the point where Jackson's Kong transcends Cooper's and Schoedsack's; not only does it make infinitely more dramatic sense for Ann to NOT want anything to do with Kong's exploitation and degradation, but her complex, multifaceted tenderness towards him far surpasses Fay Wray's bling, one-note terror, which for me was the most annoying and frustrating aspect of the original; Watts transforms this Kong into a far more emotionally resonant and heartwrenching experience. Everyone laughed when the 1976 Dino DeLaurentiis-produced remake (a misguided effort marked by badly-conceived social commentary, newcomer Jessica Lange's amusing spin on the heroine, and lots of footage of a guy in an ape suit) touted itself as the "most original" film of its time; what's really amazing nearly 30 years later is that in a movie year that seemingly featured more movie remakes than ever (mostly unnecessary or worse), Jackson, in brilliantly and beautifully reimagining what for many movie fans is inviolable, has made a film that's truly deserving of that claim. Expand
  85. PaulF.
    Jan 3, 2006
    8
    Worst part to the whole movie was that it was all of three hours. This film could have easily been two great films instead of one almost really good film. The first part was almost two hours and was very entertaining but it was too much of a jarring to cut straight back to New York. The relationship with King Kong and the blonde beauty almost seemed more romantic than a platonic love. It Worst part to the whole movie was that it was all of three hours. This film could have easily been two great films instead of one almost really good film. The first part was almost two hours and was very entertaining but it was too much of a jarring to cut straight back to New York. The relationship with King Kong and the blonde beauty almost seemed more romantic than a platonic love. It was conveyed really well and left her love for the writer out in the cold. It was a choice that was interesting but could have been more balanced. It was hard for me to take Jack Black seriously but overall I think he did better than expected. The best aspect to this film was the special effects, the best I have ever seen, and that's saying a lot. The only problem was the action was at times over the top for too long. My adernals were on overload and eventual numb to the experience. It's definitely worth a see but sad that it could have been so much more. I preferred the version with Jeff Bridges better. King Kong seemed much genteler at first and the blonde beauty seemed to truly love her man as well as her beast. Expand
  86. MichaelC
    Jan 4, 2006
    3
    The first part of the movie is the strongest. After that your oversized pocorn finds the way to your throat. Every action scene is like the punch in your stomach (not in a good way).
  87. Moose
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    LOL, Weldon. I couldn't have said it better myself. This one's for the kiddies.
  88. DarylS.
    Jan 4, 2006
    1
    Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed the beast" (at which point the entire cinema groaned). Script had no bearing on this movie. I went with no expectations, and left wondering what had Universal acclaim? Oh spare me. Enough with the spiders and lobsters and tyrannosauri rex. That was all a distraction, and I sat there waiting for them to GET ON WITH THE STORY! Oh truly, any movie that ends with "It was beauty the killed the beast" (at which point the entire cinema groaned). Script had no bearing on this movie. I went with no expectations, and left wondering what had happened. And I got a sore back to boot, after three hours sitting there wanting wanting wanting it to get better. But it just didn't. CGI is all well and good; but without a script, it's just all bells and whistles. Very disappointing. Expand
  89. BB3R
    Jan 4, 2006
    10
    Many people hate this movie, thats because they dont know how to enjoy fantasy or... dont have any idea about quality of movies, just relax men and enjoy the picture, one of the best this year. AMAZING !!.
  90. ManF.
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them before, thought the dialogue and the love between Kong and Watts was real and incredible because they've never seen a Disney kid's movie Wow, a lot of people here seem to have never gone to a movie before. What else could explain the 10's this turd is receiving other than to say that these people were amazed by the terrible CGI because they've never experienced them before, thought the dialogue and the love between Kong and Watts was real and incredible because they've never seen a Disney kid's movie (which will most likely have dialogue and emotions far realer than anything here), and most of all thought this was worth their time? At Least Armageddon was about half an hour shorter than this. Peter Jackson is a terrible, overrated hack and describing a director as "a child in a man's body" should really stop being considered a compliment. Expand
  91. DanF.
    Jan 5, 2006
    9
    Don't listen to the whiners here. Hands-down, this is the best popcorn movie I've ever seen. A thin storyline and long running time was more than made up for by the relentless action, scares, and just plain FUN. The last line of the movie was pretty silly, but that's all that kept it from a 10 to me. If you're looking for story, see Munich or Syriana. But if you want Don't listen to the whiners here. Hands-down, this is the best popcorn movie I've ever seen. A thin storyline and long running time was more than made up for by the relentless action, scares, and just plain FUN. The last line of the movie was pretty silly, but that's all that kept it from a 10 to me. If you're looking for story, see Munich or Syriana. But if you want fun, Kong is king. Expand
  92. Zachary
    Jan 5, 2006
    2
    Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent over the plot. The love story isn't believable, and by the end of the movie the audience member is left with too many uncertanties. This movie Simply Disappointing. High on quantitiy, low on quality. Unbearable long and boring, this movie has no idea what direction it is going in. The begining scenes of New York are magnificent, but in this film the "special effects" take precedent over the plot. The love story isn't believable, and by the end of the movie the audience member is left with too many uncertanties. This movie is not memeroble, thought provoking or worthwhile, a three hour cinema bore. Expand
  93. TonyMontana
    Jan 5, 2006
    0
    If a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negative posters are generally articulate, but the posters who rate it a 10 out of 10 'masterpiece' come across as children or adults of severely limitedIf a fence-sitter was to base whether or not he was going to see this film based on the user comments here, then he would definitely have to side with those reviewers who give KING KONG a big, fat ZERO. With few exceptions, the negative posters are generally articulate, but the posters who rate it a 10 out of 10 'masterpiece' come across as children or adults of severely limited cranial activity. I particularly LMAO at the poster who gave it a 10 and called Peter Jackson a 'genious autuere". Says it all really... Expand
  94. MarcelG.
    Jan 6, 2006
    9
    Well made and lot of action. Great attention to detail. Focus to much on lady-gorrilla relationship! Very emotional and powerful.
  95. YoliKnight
    Jan 7, 2006
    10
    I went to see this movie recently and now I love it. Excellent!.
  96. LuxyPichus
    Jan 7, 2006
    10
    Hey only one word!, GREAT!. Dont go see it if u dont enjoy fantasy. Because this is big!!! BIG.
  97. DavidM
    Oct 7, 2006
    10
    My jaw still remains open, my eyes still wet with tears. You can choose to take it literally, or symbolic, either way...magnificent.
  98. Chapix
    Jan 8, 2006
    10
    No words for this fantastic movie, because then I can not stop... all here is Geat!. Excelent !.
  99. MathewA.
    Jan 8, 2006
    8
    An amazing experience with little techincal flaw. Jack Black's performance was the only real element that hurt the film, however he is easily forgiven as the majority of Kong involves.. well, Kong.
  100. JackY.
    Jan 8, 2006
    4
    This movie was supper repetitive. [Ed: So is that "p".] The whole plot seemed to be about chasing the people for half and hour and then figuring how many ways there are to tear somebody's head off.
Metascore
81

Universal acclaim - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 39
  2. Negative: 1 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: Devin Gordon
    90
    A surprisingly tender, even heartbreaking, film. Like the original, it's a tragic tale of beauty and the beast.
  2. What a movie! This is how the medium seduced us originally.
  3. One of the wonders of the holiday season.